Smith v. State, 854 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Smith v. State, 854 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Davis v. State of Florida, 421 So. 3d 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 685 Limiting dna testing rights for guilty or nolo contendere pleas5 citing casesconcluding, based on nearly identical language in a previous version of the statute, that "[a] defendant who enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere may not seek postconviction DNA testing based on the language of the statute2 citing courts put it this way
  • Davis v. State of Florida, 421 So. 3d 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025).published
    (concluding, based on nearly identical language in a previous version of the statute, that "[a] defendant who enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere may not seek postconviction DNA testing based on the language of th…)
  • Rawls v. State, 56 So. 3d 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).published
    See § 925.11(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001); Smith v. State, 854 So.2d 684, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Stewart v. State, 840 So.2d 438, 438 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
  • Fuentes v. State, 907 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).published
    The defendant, therefore, cannot seek postconviction DNA testing based upon section 925.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), which provides that "[a] person who has been tried and found guilty of committing a crime" may petition the sentenci…
  • Reed v. State, 874 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).published
    “[a] defendant who enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere may not seek postconviction DNA testing based on the language of the statute”
  • Brim v. State, 969 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).published
    See Smith v. State, 854 So.2d 684, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). 1 The court determined that Brim was entitled to file a motion for DNA testing in 92-875 because he had been tried and found guilty in that case but that Brim’s motion was facially…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mathew L. SMITH, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
2D03-1287.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Jul 16, 2003.
Published opinion
854 So. 2d 684
2003 WL 21655026
Casanueva.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

[*685] CASANUEVA, Judge.

Mathew L. Smith challenges the summary denial of his motion for postconviction DNA testing filed pursuant to section 925.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2002), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. We affirm.

Smith pleaded guilty to sexual battery. He now seeks DNA testing of certain evidence. Section 925.11(1)(a) provides that a defendant "who has been tried and found guilty of committing a crime" may petition the court for DNA testing. (Emphasis added.) A defendant who enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere may not seek postconviction DNA testing based on the language of the statute. See Stewart v. State, 840 So.2d 438 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); see also Reighn v. State, 834 So.2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), cause dismissed by SC03-370, 845 So.2d 892 (Fla. May 6, 2003); accord Epps v. State, 835 So.2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). The Florida Supreme Court refused to extend the right to DNA testing to defendants who entered guilty or nolo contendere pleas. See Amendment to Fla. Rules of Criminal Procedure Creating Rule 3.853, 807 So.2d 633, 634-35 (Fla.2001). We therefore align ourselves with the First, Fourth, and Fifth Districts and conclude that a defendant is not entitled to seek DNA testing if he or she entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.

Affirmed.

DAVIS and KELLY, JJ., concur.